Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialAnalgesic effects of rofecoxib in ear-nose-throat surgery.
In this study we evaluated the analgesic efficacy and the opioid-sparing effect of rofecoxib in ear-nose-throat surgery patients. Patients undergoing nasal septal or sinus surgery were randomized to receive either oral placebo or rofecoxib 50 mg 1 h before surgery. All patients received propofol 0.8 mg/kg, fentanyl 1 microg/kg, and local anesthesia at the operative site. Sedation was maintained by a continuous infusion of propofol adjusted to maintain sedation at a 2-3 level on the Ramsey scale. Additional fentanyl 0.5-1 microg/kg was administered at the patient's request or if the verbal rating scale score was >4. Patient sedation and pain scores were obtained at 5, 15, 30 45, and 60 min during surgery and 30 min and 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after completion of the procedure. During the postoperative period, diclofenac 75 mg IM was administered for analgesia at the patient's request or if the visual analog scale (VAS) rating for pain was more than 4. VAS pain scores, intraoperative fentanyl, and postoperative diclofenac requirements were significantly smaller in the rofecoxib group compared with the placebo group (P < 0.001). The times to first analgesic request were also significantly less in the rofecoxib group. We conclude that the preoperative administration of oral rofecoxib provided a significant analgesic benefit and decreased the need for opioids in patients undergoing nasal septal and nasal sinus surgery. ⋯ The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effect of rofecoxib, a new selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor drug, in ear-nose-throat surgery patients. Preoperative administration of oral rofecoxib provided a significant analgesic benefit and decreased the need for opioids in patients undergoing nasal septal and nasal sinus surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe reliability and validity of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability observational tool as a measure of pain in children with cognitive impairment.
Pain assessment remains difficult in children with cognitive impairment (CI). In this study, we evaluated the validity and reliability of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) tool for assessing pain in children with CI. Each child's developmental level and ability to self-report pain were evaluated. The child's nurse observed and scored pain with the FLACC tool before and after analgesic administration. Simultaneously, parents scored pain with a visual analog scale, and scores were obtained from children who were able to self-report pain. Observations were videotaped and later viewed by nurses blinded to analgesics and pain scores. One-hundred-forty observations were recorded from 79 children. FLACC scores correlated with parent scores (P < 0.001) and decreased after analgesics (P = 0.001), suggesting good validity. Correlations of total scores (r = 0.5-0.8; P < 0.001) and of each category (r = 0.3-0.8; P < 0.001), as well as measures of exact agreement (kappa = 0.2-0.65), suggest good reliability. Test-retest reliability was supported by excellent correlations (r = 0.8-0.883; P < 0.001) and categorical agreement (r = 0.617-0.935; kappa = 0.400-0.881; P < 0.001). These data suggest that the FLACC tool may be useful as an objective measure of postoperative pain in children with CI. ⋯ The FLACC pain assessment tool may facilitate reliable and valid observational pain assessment in children with cognitive impairment who cannot self-report their pain. Objective pain assessment is important to facilitate effective postoperative pain management in these vulnerable children.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialIntravenous regional anesthesia using prilocaine and neostigmine.
Neostigmine has been added to local anesthetics for central and peripheral nerve blocks resulting in prolonged, increased anesthesia and improved analgesia. We conducted this study to evaluate the effects of neostigmine when added to prilocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). Thirty patients undergoing hand surgery were randomly assigned to two groups to receive IVRA. The control group received 1 mL of saline plus 3 mg/kg of prilocaine diluted with saline to a total dose of 40 mL; the study group received 0.5 mg of neostigmine plus 3 mg/kg of prilocaine diluted with saline to a total dose of 40 mL. Sensory and motor block onset and recovery, anesthesia quality determined by an anesthesiologist, anesthesia quality determined by a surgeon, and dryness of the operative field were noted. Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and oxygen saturation values were noted at 1, 5, 10, 20, and 40 min before surgery and after tourniquet release. Time to first analgesic requirement was also noted. Shortened sensory and motor block onset times, prolonged sensory and motor block recovery times, improved quality of anesthesia, and prolonged time to first analgesic requirement were found in the neostigmine group. We conclude that neostigmine as an adjunct to prilocaine improves quality of anesthesia and is beneficial in IVRA. ⋯ Neostigmine has been added to local anesthetics for central and peripheral nerve blocks. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of neostigmine when added to prilocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). Neostigmine as an adjunct to prilocaine improves quality of anesthesia and is beneficial in IVRA.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEphedrine reduces the pain from propofol injection.
One hundred seventy-six patients (ASA physical status I or II) presenting for elective surgery were randomly allocated into six study groups to compare the incidence of propofol-induced pain after pretreatment with different doses of ephedrine as compared with lidocaine. Patients in Group P (n = 30) received saline placebo; patients in Group L (n = 30) received 2% lidocaine 40 mg; patients received ephedrine 30 microg/kg (Group E30, n = 28), 70 microg/kg (Group E70, n = 30), 110 microg/kg (Group E110, n = 30), and 150 microg/kg (Group E150, n = 28), respectively, followed 30 s later by propofol 2.5 mg/kg. A blinded anesthesiologist asked the patient to evaluate the pain score (verbal rating scale and face pain scale). The incidence and intensity of pain was less in the lidocaine and ephedrine groups than in the placebo group (P < 0.01). Before tracheal intubation, the arterial blood pressure was decreased in the P and L groups, and after intubation, hemodynamics were increased in the E110 and E150 groups, respectively (P < 0.05). We concluded that pretreatment with a small dose of ephedrine (30 and 70 microg/kg) reduced the incidence and intensity of propofol-induced pain with a lesser decrease in arterial blood pressure than from propofol alone in lidocaine pretreatment. ⋯ Propofol is a widely used IV anesthetic for the induction of anesthesia, but it often causes local pain when administered into peripheral veins. A small dose of ephedrine reduces the incidence and intensity of the pain without significant adverse hemodynamic effects during induction.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2002
Comparative Study Clinical TrialEpidural anesthesia and analgesia in liver resection.
In patients undergoing major liver resection, the decision to introduce an epidural catheter and the timing of its removal should be made with care because of the prolonged changes in platelet count and in prothrombin time that develop in some patients.